These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#601 - 2012-10-16 05:44:59 UTC
At least now I understand why you guys are jealous of our income levels. With Risk and Reward.

You guys built so many titans and SCs so fast, you increased the risk down there and none of the reward caught up to it.

No wonder people gank miners, that is easier then facing all the supers down in null.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#602 - 2012-10-16 06:29:45 UTC
See my sig.

Ni.

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#603 - 2012-10-16 06:33:22 UTC
rodyas wrote:
At least now I understand why you guys are jealous of our income levels. With Risk and Reward.

You guys built so many titans and SCs so fast, you increased the risk down there and none of the reward caught up to it.

No wonder people gank miners, that is easier then facing all the supers down in null.

I always wondered where the feck they got all the minerals from to build all dem super stuffz?

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#604 - 2012-10-16 06:34:33 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
rodyas wrote:
At least now I understand why you guys are jealous of our income levels. With Risk and Reward.

You guys built so many titans and SCs so fast, you increased the risk down there and none of the reward caught up to it.

No wonder people gank miners, that is easier then facing all the supers down in null.

I always wondered where the feck they got all the minerals from to build all dem super stuffz?


Bot-fleets. In hisec.

Ni.

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#605 - 2012-10-16 06:36:04 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
rodyas wrote:
At least now I understand why you guys are jealous of our income levels. With Risk and Reward.

You guys built so many titans and SCs so fast, you increased the risk down there and none of the reward caught up to it.

No wonder people gank miners, that is easier then facing all the supers down in null.

I always wondered where the feck they got all the minerals from to build all dem super stuffz?


Bot-fleets. In hisec.

did day tank dose bots? bad menz come ent blow dem up if notz.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#606 - 2012-10-16 06:37:04 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
rodyas wrote:
At least now I understand why you guys are jealous of our income levels. With Risk and Reward.

You guys built so many titans and SCs so fast, you increased the risk down there and none of the reward caught up to it.

No wonder people gank miners, that is easier then facing all the supers down in null.

I always wondered where the feck they got all the minerals from to build all dem super stuffz?


Bot-fleets. In hisec.


Yeah I heard bots and drone regions.

But I always blame the fact that titans are T1 more then its hi sec fault. If the ship is T1 of course hi sec is involved, its easy to make and only takes the common construction parts.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#607 - 2012-10-16 11:46:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Opertone
Okay!

Why is mining not profitable? Because it is overdone by bots. Why are there bots in first place? Because no human being likes the mental challenge of a brain dead robot slave, such as butt-numbing depressing grinding nature of mining.

If only human casual players were allowed to mine - minerals could be become precious and mining labour more rewarding.

One side of the problem lies in easy automated and long process of mining. It must be changed, total yield must be increased, ore capacity must be increased. But asteroids available for mining need to be scanned down, perhaps an expedition to distant place, or even an NPC force that may stand in your way. Rocks that sit in one place just ask for bots.

Human part would be prospecting - actually finding ASTEROID field, scanning it all - some rocks should be rich, others completely barren. This is where bots have less skill than human. If you are a bot and take every rock available - you get 0.001 Mineral yield. If you are a human, you get 0.5 mineral per M3 of ORE.

Mining could always be more tactical, just like probing system got a revamp, mining needs it too.

Other side is reward part - nobody wants to spend whole evening mining, is it a source of income - not the point of the game itself. Mine 30 minutes, make enough ore and hop into your combat ready ship, go out for a trip. Minerals should take less time to find, less time to extract, but some extra time to reprocess, to not over buff the profession.


So mining should be a high yield profession for humans, but one that requires skills and effort. So it can not be done by bots, and does not become effortless (like it is now). It should be exciting like complexes or wormholes. Perhaps cool mining can be moved to Unknown space. But it needs a complete revamp of the system.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again

ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#608 - 2012-10-16 11:55:32 UTC
Hi,

Really enjoying the debate so far, but as a courtesy - please avoid sweeping statements that marginalize sections of our populace!

Thanks Pirate

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#609 - 2012-10-16 19:04:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Opertone wrote:
Okay!

Why is mining not profitable? Because it is overdone by bots. Why are there bots in first place? Because no human being likes the mental challenge of a brain dead robot slave, such as butt-numbing depressing grinding nature of mining.

If only human casual players were allowed to mine - minerals could be become precious and mining labour more rewarding.

One side of the problem lies in easy automated and long process of mining. It must be changed, total yield must be increased, ore capacity must be increased. But asteroids available for mining need to be scanned down, perhaps an expedition to distant place, or even an NPC force that may stand in your way. Rocks that sit in one place just ask for bots.

Human part would be prospecting - actually finding ASTEROID field, scanning it all - some rocks should be rich, others completely barren. This is where bots have less skill than human. If you are a bot and take every rock available - you get 0.001 Mineral yield. If you are a human, you get 0.5 mineral per M3 of ORE.

Mining could always be more tactical, just like probing system got a revamp, mining needs it too.

Other side is reward part - nobody wants to spend whole evening mining, is it a source of income - not the point of the game itself. Mine 30 minutes, make enough ore and hop into your combat ready ship, go out for a trip. Minerals should take less time to find, less time to extract, but some extra time to reprocess, to not over buff the profession.


So mining should be a high yield profession for humans, but one that requires skills and effort. So it can not be done by bots, and does not become effortless (like it is now). It should be exciting like complexes or wormholes. Perhaps cool mining can be moved to Unknown space. But it needs a complete revamp of the system.

I'm going to try to present my argument again, please hear me out:

If mining ships had slightly less EHP miners would be forced to adapt to attempts on their mining ships by gankers.

In this case, the adaptation for ganking is to mine aligned to a tactical warp-out. When paying attention, it is possible to avoid a gank in 99 out of 100 gank attempts. That's because you enter warp immediately when you press the "Warp to" button if you're aligned. Aligned means moving at least 75% of your maximum velocity in the direction of your warp out point. That means you'd have to lock new rocks as you move out of range of the ones you move by, keeping mining active rather than passive. With the cavernous ore bays of the Mackinaw and Skiff, this is possible to do for a reasonable amount of time before needing to unload cargo. Why isn't this what miners do? It's clearly the tactical choice to make, which seemed to be what you were after for mining.

Instead, nearly every miner I've seen sits still, present themselves as a target, complain that mining is boring because they don't have to do anything, and complain that mining boats need more EHP and, getting to the post above, somehow they need even more yield? All this because they, in general, refuse to pay attention to their surroundings and take a simple tactical precaution.

I favor making asteroids harder to come by. But I also advocate a position that is consistent for all capsuleers in New Eden:

You are responsible for your own enjoyment of the game.

If mining seems like a bore it's because miners really wouldn't have it any other way. There's no way to mine AFK if you actually have to pay attention.

So that's my rationale behind the OP in a nutshell. Add value to mining by adding risk. Successful miners earn more ISK per mining cycle when there's legitimate risk. That makes the profession as a whole more valuable. Anything less is selling the profession short.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#610 - 2012-10-16 19:52:31 UTC
Opertone wrote:
~stuff that has been said before in this thread~


Reverting EHP buffs to the mack and hulk will reduce the bot problem and increase risk in highsec because ganking will fall into the solo play realm again. They could also solve this problem by enforcing their anti-AFK PvE stance when it comes to AFK miners but, that does not increase highsec risk.

I can agree that mining game play in general is not fun at all and should be changed.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#611 - 2012-10-16 19:58:03 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Instead, nearly ever miner I've seen sits still, present themselves as a target, complain that mining is boring because they don't have to do anything, and complain that mining boats need more EHP and, getting to the post above, somehow they need even more yield? All this because they, in general, refuse to pay attention to their surroundings and take a simple tactical precaution.

So that's my rationale behind the OP in a nutshell. Add value to mining by adding risk. Successful miners earn more ISK per mining cycle when there's legitimate risk. That makes the profession as a whole more valuable. Anything less is selling the profession short.

Still on "adding value" I see.

1) Again - when miners could be blown up (easily) they didn't move, didn't tank - tanking and moving is not exciting.
2) Getting blown up is not enjoyment, nor is it exciting.
3) The problem is not economics, it's not trade value, it's not tankable/untankable exhumers.
4) Miners have their own enjoyment. They don't need anyone to make fun for them or to add value.

Put simply, that is the way they want to play. Their greatest danger in Eve is to themselves. For everyone else, ships and mods are cheaper. Why is this a problem?

THIS the OP rationale in a nutshell.
>> I, the ganker, don't have the balls to seek out targets that shoot back and I want CCP to make it easier for me.


End of Story... And a sad but funny one at that.


"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#612 - 2012-10-16 19:58:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
I want more risk in high sec. I want gate camp in high sec !

Soon this will be funneh Lol

brb

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#613 - 2012-10-16 19:59:52 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
They could also solve this problem by enforcing their anti-AFK PvE stance when it comes to AFK miners but

What evidence do you have to suggest that they have issue with AFK mining?
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#614 - 2012-10-16 20:02:14 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
They could also solve this problem by enforcing their anti-AFK PvE stance when it comes to AFK miners but

What evidence do you have to suggest that they have issue with AFK mining?

Actually, all the quotes out there indicate they don't. Except all the other quotes indicate that they have a problem with AFK PVE of other types.

The reason for the difference in rationale is inexplicable in my estimation.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#615 - 2012-10-16 20:03:45 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
The reason for the difference in rationale is inexplicable in my estimation.

One could also wonder why the miner pays/PLEXes a sub in order to mine.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#616 - 2012-10-16 20:04:15 UTC
Now this might be awesome, mining with an account and high sec gate camping with another.

brb

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#617 - 2012-10-16 20:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
They could also solve this problem by enforcing their anti-AFK PvE stance when it comes to AFK miners but

What evidence do you have to suggest that they have issue with AFK mining?

Actually, all the quotes out there indicate they don't. Except all the other quotes indicate that they have a problem with AFK PVE of other types.

The reason for the difference in rationale is inexplicable in my estimation.

I've offered my input on that, but never get any feedback or counterpoints.

Edit: Well, half true, I got feedback saying I was wrong for the most part but not concrete counterpoints
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#618 - 2012-10-16 20:05:17 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
The reason for the difference in rationale is inexplicable in my estimation.

One could also wonder why the miner pays/PLEXes a sub in order to mine.

With greater risk to unsuccessful miners, this problem disappears, as miners' profession is sufficiently valuable as to establish an equilibrium with the rest of the market, balancing against everything - including PLEX prices.

Successful miners will continue to be able to PLEX with increased risk.

Only failed miners won't be.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#619 - 2012-10-16 20:06:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
They could also solve this problem by enforcing their anti-AFK PvE stance when it comes to AFK miners but

What evidence do you have to suggest that they have issue with AFK mining?

Actually, all the quotes out there indicate they don't. Except all the other quotes indicate that they have a problem with AFK PVE of other types.

The reason for the difference in rationale is inexplicable in my estimation.

I've offered my input on that, but never get any feedback or counterpoints.

I missed it. Can you give me a quote/link?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#620 - 2012-10-16 20:09:18 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
I missed it. Can you give me a quote/link?

Earlier in the thread:

"...as I understood the setup in question it was an exploit because it created a situation where no user inputs were needed while bounties continued to accumulate.

I'm not aware of a way to achieve the same while mining without using clearly EULA violating methods."